How pressing the problem is for the rest of the world, I don’t know, but it definitely seems like China’s infrastructure as it’s currently built probably wouldn’t be able to handle the number of additional people they say would be added to their population without such programs. And when that number, 200 million, is 2/3 the size of the entire US population, yeah, I can see why they might have some concern.
No, it’s entirely appropriate. The freedom and right to reproduce is about as basic as you can get. Anybody tries to impose involuntary sterilizations - on anybody but felony-violent criminals - anywhere I live, I’ll be out on the streets with loaded weapons. And I there’ll be a lot of others out there with me.
How about YOU go through the sterilization first, just to show how strongly you stand by your beliefs? Then the rest of us can go along and have the kids we want while your craziness removes itself from the gene pool.
Actually, now that I think about it, this is exactly what is happening. Europe’s demographics are in the toilet and sinking; the old-stock European population is having children at a rate well below replacement, and is being effectively replaced by the culturally very different Arab and Turkish and African immigrants. It’s a damn shame, because there’s much to admire about Europe, but if an entire civilization is that determined to commit suicide there’s not much to be done about it.
As for overpopulation, that’s a load of bunk. There’ve been doomsday predictions of mass overpopulation and mass starvation for over a hundred years now (Malthus being the famous first one). It’s not happening. 20 years ago the predictions were we’d be hitting 10-12 billion by now. That sure didn’t happen. Anybody here ever play “Balance of the Planet”? Very good game, very educational about ecology and how everything is connected and so on; it was my first real education in ecological and environmental issues. One little problem: you look at its predictions for the 1990s and 2000s compared to what actually happened and is happening, and it is absolutely completely fucking wrong. The only mass starvations in history - particularly recent history - have been the direct result of authoritarian controls; the free market handles both food and reproduction much better than you’d expect. The planet as a whole is doing fine, and there is room for more people on it (although I’ll admit I personally would prefer that there not be that many more).
But, to (finally) get back to the point, which is to say, China, consider the following: even if they DO implement this policy, and even if it is successful in rebalancing the gender birthrates, all that that means is that it’s going to be 16 years or so at the earliest before those girls hit childbearing age. 10 years from now, after what, 30 years? of selective abortions, you’re going to have entire generations of young men milling about, unable to find themselves a mate and create a family, and probably somewhat upset about it. What are they going to do?
India and Pakistan are in very similar situations, for similar cultural reasons, from what I understand.
See, I think SDI is a good idea. Even if it doesn’t work yet.
That’s not a relevant truth. War keeps the human population in check, and the birthrate adjusts according to need (with or without government imposition).
Funny Hitler photo.
Elaborating a bit: while creepy, individuals here and there deciding to abort because they want a boy instead - I’m sure it happens in the US occasionally - isn’t the same thing as “entire society wants boys so badly that there’s going to be a gigantic extra number of men in 20 years, which historically leads to nasty wars.”
So I’m in favor of China’s policy to head off that, not because it’s kind of creepy to abort based on sex.
The only mass starvations in history - particularly recent history - have been the direct result of authoritarian controls; the free market handles both food and reproduction much better than you’d expect.
The only mass starvations in recent history have occured under dicatorships of the left or right (China), yes, but democracies have had massive deaths from malnourishment that went on for years and years(India), so it’s not as cut-and-dried as all that. Sen owns this debate.
Euri, the evidence we’re going to really have problems with overpopulation is debatable. Some areas are obviously at or beyond carrying capacity based just on water availability, if the ecology isn’t going to totally get nuked, but others can support a thousand times as many people. Remember, we just have to make it until all the countries out there go through the demographic transition.
That’s not a relevant truth. War keeps the human population in check, and the birthrate adjusts according to need (with or without government imposition).
Per Diamond’s new book, it’s more than everything keeps growing in the good times, but as soon as the first drought comes it starvation time.
The freedom and right to reproduce is about as basic as you can get.
Freedoms and rights are debatable.
Anybody tries to impose involuntary sterilizations - on anybody but felony-violent criminals - anywhere I live, I’ll be out on the streets with loaded weapons. And I there’ll be a lot of others out there with me.
The United States doesn’t have a massive overpopulation problem, so it probably won’t happen. Our culture is, more or less, voluntarily limiting family sizes to sustainable levels. Assuming the immigrants to the US also adopt this type of lifestyle, everything remains good.
How about YOU go through the sterilization first, just to show how strongly you stand by your beliefs?
Already did.
Then the rest of us can go along and have the kids we want while your craziness removes itself from the gene pool.
Crazy today, historian tomorrow.
As for overpopulation, that’s a load of bunk.
Do you believe India can sustain it’s population at current and rising levels indefinitely? Have you factored in energy consumption?
There’ve been doomsday predictions of mass overpopulation and mass starvation for over a hundred years now (Malthus being the famous first one). It’s not happening.
Our technology has progressed at a pace far exceeding what anyone could have predicted. Food doesn’t materialize out of thin air, and there is only so much that can be produced. We keep upping the amount that can be grown or produced per given area, but that isn’t infinite. China is also facing quickly growing deserts, and like India, an inability to produce all the energy all those people will need. Quality of life also must be considered. We can pack a LOT of people onto a small area, feed them sparingly, and now allow them any of the creature comforts that we use today… but what kind of life is that? I for one don’t want to be a farmer, or a hunter, ever.
20 years ago the predictions were we’d be hitting 10-12 billion by now. That sure didn’t happen.
I don’t put much stock in such predictions. We’re fickle creatures, and we are ultimately at the mercy of our environment. It isn’t difficult to see that population growth can’t continue forever before something horrible happens. We have to level off eventually.
But, to (finally) get back to the point, which is to say, China, consider the following: even if they DO implement this policy, and even if it is successful in rebalancing the gender birthrates, all that that means is that it’s going to be 16 years or so at the earliest before those girls hit childbearing age. 10 years from now, after what, 30 years? of selective abortions, you’re going to have entire generations of young men milling about, unable to find themselves a mate and create a family, and probably somewhat upset about it. What are they going to do?
Not sure what you’re asking. Right now, many families abort daughters (I’ve heard rumours of infanticide, but I have no idea if they are true or not) because the culture places a lot of value on a male, and not much on a female. If this trend continues, we’ll have a lot of milling males and too few females to reproduce with. Of course, this trend would solve the problem itself, but heterosexual chinese men will live very boring lives.
Koontz said:
That’s not a relevant truth. War keeps the human population in check, and the birthrate adjusts according to need (with or without government imposition).
Tell that to India.
McCullough said:
Euri, the evidence we’re going to really have problems with overpopulation is debatable.
Yes. IF things continue like they are now, we will have problems. No debate at all. If population growth levels off, we won’t, unless Peak Oil hits us in some unexpected way. Life is harsh, we might as well start implementing policies which make it less so.
What makes you think the third world and transitioning countries won’t undergo the demographic transition, then? Even if we did have to chop population growth for some reason, involuntary sterilization sure as hell wouldn’t be the way to do it.
If the rest of the world consumed resources at the rate that an average American did, we’d need four planet Earths.
Involuntary sterilization?
Crazy the next day.
Again, that’s relative.
The US’s per capita energy consumption is about 15 times that of India’s.
The point being, if the world’s weal – err, resources were more evenly distributed, India, China, Africa, the entire world on average would be significantly better off. And the top 1% of the world’s population (for the most part, us) not nearly as significantly less better off. That is, many of us could stand to lose about 100 pounds in order to allow them to gain 10 pounds, see?
Indeed. The US has hit an agricultural deficit for the first time in nearly 40 years. Food for thought?
Personally, I’ll take conservation and sustainability over sterilization any day. I mean, what if the one child Big Brother allows me to have turns out to be a Republican. Shouldn’t I be able to try again, for the good of humanity?
Burn on you, breeders!
[quote=“Uncle_Larry”]
Burn on you, breeders![/quote]
Maybe he was doing us a favour?